Stay Tuned: Why the Parents Television Council is wrong about Skins’

Melissa Crawley

Thursday

Jan 27, 2011 at 12:01 AMJan 27, 2011 at 10:28 AM

“Skins” is a new scripted drama on MTV that focuses on a group of friends. They have sex and spend a lot of time trying to have sex. They take drugs and talk a lot about taking drugs. They don't apologize for their behavior, suffer many consequences or think too deeply about what it all means. They're also in high school.

“Skins” is a new scripted drama on MTV that focuses on a group of friends. They have sex and spend a lot of time trying to have sex. They take drugs and talk a lot about taking drugs. They don't apologize for their behavior, suffer many consequences or think too deeply about what it all means. They're also in high school.

The pilot episode of “Skins,” based on a U.K. show of the same name, was watched by 3.3 million viewers in the 12-34 age bracket. While its subject matter is nothing unique (“Fast Times at Ridgemont High,” among others, covered it more than two decades ago), what is new is that the actors playing the rebellious teenagers are actual teenagers, aged between 15 and 19. This fact, coupled with the show's graphic tone, was enough for the Parents Television Council to say that: “’Skins’ may well be the most dangerous television show for children that we have ever seen.” It's a bold and alarming statement that deserves a closer look.

Yes, “Skins” is a raw depiction of what teenagers get up to when their parents aren't paying attention, but what exactly makes it a broadcast version of the apocalypse? For the concerned members of the PTC, it's that the show's gritty depiction of teenage life is somehow made more “real” because the actors are the age they are playing. Yet this would imply that teenage viewers take “Skins'” portrayal of sex and drugs more seriously than another show's take on the same topic, like “90210” or “Gossip Girl,” simply because the actors aren't in their 20s. The PTC also claims that the mere act of broadcasting the show on television makes undesirable behavior seem “typical” and “expected” to teenagers, but then adds: “That's not to say it factors into their decision-making process.” To summarize then, “Skins” is to blame for promoting teenagers' bad behavior, but teenagers won't make decisions based on what they watch. So is it just “Skins” equals bad?

The goal of the Parents Television Council is to help parents make informed decisions about what their children are watching. This is well-meaning. In the case of “Skins,” however, the PTC's statements are good for a headline, but they are not that useful for parents, kids or our television culture. Instead of being afraid of “Skins” for its “kids behaving badly” theme, we should recognize that it stirs debate and reflects many teenagers' reality. If parents are concerned enough to monitor their children's viewing habits, they're probably also concerned enough to talk to their kids about what's happening in their lives. More than likely, sex and drugs will come up whether or not they watch a show like “Skins” or never wander away from the Disney Channel. The PTC's criticism of “Skins” implies that teenagers' experiences don't deserve a voice unless they're sanitized. That's a lot more dangerous than a television show.

Melissa Crawley credits her love of all things small screen to her parents, who never used the line, "Or no TV!" as a punishment. Her book, “Mr. Sorkin Goes to Washington: Shaping the President on Television's 'The West Wing,’” was published in 2006. She has a PhD in media studies. To comment on Stay Tuned, e-mail her at staytuned2011@hotmail.com.

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.